Alex

That's not at all what they said! They said a manager's impact is hard to gauge and that a successful manager moving club has just over 50% chance of being successful. Villa are again a specific example of a manager doing well when he comes in (and Unai Emery has a mixed record of success as well). Villa have had lots more examples of managers doing badly when they came in. Gerrard was a successful manager before his move, so that's just balanced out Emery. This example is not the "clear statistics" you stated, just another example that supports the point you made on what I believe was simply your gut feeling. The Economist analysis however is a pattern that emerged from 15 years of English league data encompassing every managerial change during that time.

Coul you cite these self-contradictions please? You also still haven't cited these clear statistics you mentioned about management change being the biggest factor affecting team performance that started this whole debate.

Lol, come on now, The Economist never has been solely about economics, not should it be. It's a current affairs periodical that's mainly about world events and politics (much the same as any newspaper is about current affairs and politics). Also in the same way the FT isn't just a financial newspaper and both are pretty much the pinnacle of journalism. It also doesn't have the sort of political bias as many national publications. As someone that spent his early career working as an analyst I really enjoy their data-driven journalism. The 2019 analysis didn't mention Brandt, but it did call Klopp an outlier in the data in that he was a successful manager repeating his success elsewhere. Has Pochettino been moaning about the board signing the wrong players? If he has that seems to have passed me by.

Yep, you're right he did, but they also pursued Brandt: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/its-shame-liverpool-21m-target-27405055

You should Google the 2019 Economist piece entitled, 'Managers in football matter much less than most fans think'. Fans do lay most of the blame or credit for a team's performance on the manager. The article gives statistical evidence of how most successful managers struggle to replicate their success elsewhere suggesting other factors are more important to their original success. I think success or failure is holistic and everything plays a part. In 2017 Klopp asked the board to sign a German forward called Julian Brandt. The Sporting director said the analysts preferred a certain Egyptian winger.

From the Economist article about Klopp's departure (and the study I was recalling was also by them in 2019): In 2013 Sir Alex Ferguson announced his retirement as Manchester United’s manager after 27 years. He became so central to the club that his power was practically unchecked. For his final two years in the job, Sir Alex could walk past a nine-foot bronze statue of himself at the club’s Old Trafford ground. He was able to handpick his successor—a fellow Glaswegian, David Moyes—and then sit in the directors’ box to watch it all fall apart." It goes on, but it basically said Manchester United had fallen behind most other clubs in terms of off-field developments during Ferguson's tenure and they basically needed three people to replace him. I think replacing a manager of 27 years who had brought an unparalleled period of success to Manchester United is a pretty unique case. I don't really understand what your answer meant.

The question I am asking is what data supports your point since you said it is statistically clear?

Two people whose posts I enjoy reading. Didn't think either of you two chaps were the sort to get irritated about much, especially opinions about football

Just asking what data supports management changes being the most influential factor? I'm a bit tipsy in China having not watched the Villa game or able to watch MotD highlights behind the Great Firewall or even on Google. I thought I read analysis somewhere sensible recently, think it was The Economist, that management changes are not actually a very influential factor in a teams' results, with successful managers mostly failing to replicate their success after moves

Yep doubt Solanke would come either. Maatsen, Fofana and Hutchinson are the only loanees doing particularly well and maybe only Fofana is of use to the Chelsea first team as a back-up striker. The other two should hopefully bring in cash along with the £35m from Newcastle for Hutchinson. Kepa and Lukaku will probably just be loans in the final year of their contracts to get their wages off the books. I still can't believe we spend £115m on Moses Caicedo this season, who was outclassed by Rice, a former academy player, English, experienced and £15m cheaper!

I think precisely when Pochettino would potentially be replaced is very important as if it happened now it would contribute another negative 10 mill or so to this year's very precarious accounts.

I understand the dejection after yesterday and the annoyance at the schizophrenic nature of our performances, beat United, Newcastle and thrash Everton, draw with City, but then also with Brentford Burnley and Sheffield United. Now this hiding. I also understand the annoyance at the manager and the calls for his job, I'm not impressed with him either. I imagine the questions concerning the owners who are obviously influenced by the unhappiness of the fans is who to replace him with that would do any better and how to fund the change. How much compensation would we have to pay the manager and his staff to terminate their contracts. Paying off Tuchel and, especially, Potter was extremely costly in an environment where it's looking very tight to comply with FFP. And who would come to Chelsea in this current state? Whoever does is guaranteed to ask for a huge financial package, undoubtedly with a lot of compensation clauses in the event of dismissal.

I really despise your username (those stupid films were lowest-common-denominator crap, and racist), but reading your posts I often find myself agreeing with you. I doubt any Chelsea fan is thrilled at the state of the side at the moment, but we're capable of beating big teams again, so at least you can sit down in front of a Chelsea game and have a reasonable hope of a result, which you couldn't last year.

In Spain (there are 60 odd B teams playing as high as the second division and that play in cup competitions) it ruins Spanish lower tier football. There's a reason why the Premiership and FA Cup are the best domestic football competitions on the planet, there's a fantastically competitive structure beneath the top tier supporting it. Being a feeder club will have a substantially negative impact on the home support for the feeder club. As we are seeing with Strasbourg.

Are there ways? I'm struggling to see any upside for the feeder clubs or their fans. To be honest I hadn't paid any attention to it until Chelsea bought Strasbourg.